3 ms·

"The solution offered is offensive, amounting to randomly allocating power and privilege amongst a given population rather than allowing the best and brightest

by decode 17y ago

"The solution offered is offensive, amounting to randomly allocating power and privilege amongst a given population rather than allowing the best and brightest make their case through personal excellence." The important question that the author raises is this: why is that offensive? Right now we allocate power according to the chance of genetics and environment, and tell people that we're actually allocating it through personal effort. Which raises two questions: 1) Is it okay to lie to ourselves about what determines the meritocratic hierarchy? 2) Is it more tragic that a bright, smart, knowledgeable person not be able to fully exercise those properties, or for a slow, unintelligent, uninformed person to not be able to have a dignified place in society? The answers to these questions could be either yes or no, but we need to be honest about our answers to them, and why we answer them the way we do.

anamax 17y ago
> Is it more tragic that a bright, smart, knowledgeable person not be able to fully exercise those properties, or for a slow, unintelligent, uninformed person to not be able to have a dignified place in society? Those aren't mutually exclusive and neither is their inverse. Also, the first one is wrong in a subtle way. We want people to exercise their capabilities to the fullest - bright and smart are merely two kinds of capabilities, two that are far less important than bright and smart people think. In summary, we want all people going at full tilt and we want dignity regardless of what their "full tilt" is. The author's mistake is in thinking that you can give someone dignity by treating them as more capable than they actually are.
- decode 17y ago
  "Those aren't mutually exclusive and neither is their inverse." They certainly aren't in general, but in a meritocracy they are. A meritocracy, almost by definition, assigns more value (and therefore dignity) to those who are more capable. I think the author is arguing for an environment where they are no longer mutually exclusive. "The author's mistake is in thinking that you can give someone dignity by treating them as more capable than they actually are." I think the author is saying that dignity should not be tied to how capable a person is.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > A meritocracy, almost by definition, assigns more value (and therefore dignity) to those who are more capable. No, a meritocracy does does not assign more value to the more capable. Moreover, dignity is not value.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "The author's mistake is in thinking that you can give someone dignity by treating them as more capable than they actually are." In some parts he argued that is what we are education system is doing now, in others he seemed to be advocating exactly that (the traditional farming community, for example).

by decode 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> Is it more tragic that a bright, smart, knowledgeable person not be able to fully exercise those properties, or for a slow, unintelligent, uninformed person to not be able to have a dignified place in society? Those aren't mutually exclusive and neither is their inverse. Also, the first one is wrong in a subtle way. We want people to exercise their capabilities to the fullest - bright and smart are merely two kinds of capabilities, two that are far less important than bright and smart people think. In summary, we want all people going at full tilt and we want dignity regardless of what their "full tilt" is. The author's mistake is in thinking that you can give someone dignity by treating them as more capable than they actually are.

decode 17y ago
"Those aren't mutually exclusive and neither is their inverse." They certainly aren't in general, but in a meritocracy they are. A meritocracy, almost by definition, assigns more value (and therefore dignity) to those who are more capable. I think the author is arguing for an environment where they are no longer mutually exclusive. "The author's mistake is in thinking that you can give someone dignity by treating them as more capable than they actually are." I think the author is saying that dignity should not be tied to how capable a person is.
- anamax 17y ago
  > A meritocracy, almost by definition, assigns more value (and therefore dignity) to those who are more capable. No, a meritocracy does does not assign more value to the more capable. Moreover, dignity is not value.
jimbokun 17y ago
"The author's mistake is in thinking that you can give someone dignity by treating them as more capable than they actually are." In some parts he argued that is what we are education system is doing now, in others he seemed to be advocating exactly that (the traditional farming community, for example).